Navigate:

How long can Obama delay Keystone XL pipeline call?

Recent moves in Congress have pushed the Keystone issue back to the forefront. | Reuters

Blumenthal, the Seattle-based co-president of Climate Solutions, added a warning: “If he caves and supports the pipeline, it’s game over for both the climate and my support of the president.”

Last week, Blumenthal and Betsy Taylor, a philanthropic adviser to several climate donors and foundations, helped organize a letter to the White House and Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters from more than 85 donors and volunteers from the 2008 campaign, urging the president to lead on climate change. Taylor said Obama now has a chance to prove his chops.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“If the president waffles on this or fails to act decisively, it will send a huge chill through the community,” she said. “Will people vote for him? Yes. Will they work for him, raise money for him and activate their networks for him? Not likely.”

Labor groups are also keeping close tabs on the pipeline decision. Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, said last week before the final Senate deal was struck that the pipeline would create jobs for thousands of construction workers.

“For them, it is not just a pipeline; it’s a lifeline,” he said. “Continued delay of this important project is an unacceptable insult to men and women who are trained and able to build the infrastructure that keeps the American economy moving forward.”

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters also supports the Keystone pipeline, but a spokesman declined to comment Saturday on the 60-day deadline included in the Senate compromise.

At the other end of the political spectrum, Republicans, from the presidential contenders to Capitol Hill to industry, are itching for a fight.

“The president of the United States cannot figure out that it is — I’m using mild words here — utterly irrational to say, ‘I’m now going to veto a middle-class tax cut to protect left-wing environmental extremists in San Francisco,” Newt Gingrich said last week in Iowa during the final GOP presidential debate for 2011.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Obama would be reopening a political can of worms if he decides early next year not to let the pipeline go forward.

“The language that passed the House is that the president has to say in 60 days if he wants to stop the pipeline, and it’s not in the national interest,” Barrasso said. “And if he wants to make that case and he wants to then extend the tax relief further than the two months, it’s gonna be right back on the table again.”

Industry groups that favor the pipeline plan to keep the pressure up, too. On Friday, the American Petroleum Institute made a bit of a splash by inviting former Obama National Security Adviser Jim Jones onto a press call to urge passage of the Keystone language.

Readers' Comments (120)

The Keystone pipeline is another litmus test for the current American political system and more pointedly to the current members of Congress. Of course they are unlikely to understand the true nature of the test, since that would require them to comprehend the real problem before them. The Keystone pipeline issue is not a simple pro or con issue, it is not for jobs versus for environment question, it is not an energy independence or national security issue, and it is not a Republican versus Democratic issue. Now that is not to say that these factors don’t have significance, rather that those who are representing the interests of the citizens of the country should be assessing what best serves those they serve. These same representatives should not of course be looking for their best opportunity to do what politicians do best, look to their own self-interests and selling out to special interest groups.

The issue of the Keystone pipeline is a multi-facetted dilemma, including the items referenced above; it is a challenging and thorny problem for a legislative body to contend with. The chore for Congress is to not simply to vote for or against the pipeline, but to insure that they structure any approval in a manner that serves the public. Do any of the Congressional minions realize that their duty is to deal with establishing the legislative environment and legal conditions under which the pipeline, if approved, should be required to be built, operated and the really important part Congress doesn’t even appreciate is holding the industry fiscally accountable and liable for damages with guaranteed assurance that there is no escape from this responsibility. This is the responsibility and duty that Congress is neglecting in their quest for pandering to their respective special interest contributors.

Why is this a partisan or a bipartisan issue? If the pipeline will benefit America then it is worth doing. But Congress is not responsible for that benefit being that the pipeline serves the oil companies. The companies will do the pipeline if they can profit from it. It’s what companies do. But to benefit America, the pipeline has to let the oil companies not only make their profits but to do so without risking that the public is left saddled with the consequences of poor, risky and negligent actions by the companies that build and operate the pipeline.This is the test for Congress, to serve the country and the people.

This is where Congress fails. Congress does not look at issues, like the pipeline, through the lens of national interests. Instead, Congress lines their positions up based on a political philosophy that has nothing to do with understanding an issue but with wanting the country be their way they want. Nothing wrong with a vision of what you would like. But we should expect Congress to be ready and able to deal with issues and the reality of those issues, not with their own belief that reality will bend to their will. Congress makes the laws of the nation, but they are powerless to make the consequences of their laws affecting us all be what they want them to be. Just like everyone else, Congress and the nation will reap what they sow in our fields.

We_Hold_These_Truths checks his naughty or nice list, "Candy or Oil in Your Stocking?"

American families would much prefer jobs in their politically incorrect Christmas stockings.

We_Hold_These_Truths continues, "The issue of the Keystone pipeline is a multi-facetted dilemma"

Nope. For Americans this is a simple issue of creating jobs and an economic boost or squashing jobs and harming our economy. Americans have little or no interest in waxing philosophical about a myriad of issues rather Americans want a simple answer, "Jobs or No Jobs".

We_Hold_These_Truths adds, "duty is to deal with establishing the legislative environment and legal conditions under which the pipeline"

Absolutely not. Congress has no business in this pipeline issue. No legislation is needed, no new laws are needed and a decision to allow or disallow this pipeline is not within the purview of Congress. This pipeline decision belongs solely to our State Department and the Oval Office.

Should Congress become involved in this pipeline question, a final decision will not come for a decade.

All regulations and laws are in place. This is a matter for Hillary Clinton to negotiate an international "treaty" between Canada and America. This is already done and this international agreement contains clauses all of our American regulations and laws will be followed.

There is only one simple issue which is Obama deciding "Yea" or "Nay". So far, Obama is refusing to make a decision until after elections. Obama only has his political interests in mind, Obama does not have the interests of America in mind.

Obama's only interest is votes. Obama does not care diddly-squat about American families.

This is not a "multi-facetted dilemma". This is simply a question of jobs in Christmas stockings of American families or a chunk of Obama coldhearted coal in Christmas stockings of American families.

This document will help you and readers learn about how our government operates, specifically our State Department and our "Presidential Permit" process when international treaties are involved. Congress has no direct authority over this pipeline. This document is produced by our Congressional Research Service and includes discussion of State Department and Oval Office authority.

"Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues" - www.hsdl.org/

This is critically important for readers to understand Congress has no direct authority over this pipeline.

We have two choices. First, build the pipeline. Second, someone else will build that pipeline. Either way, it will be built. The Canadians want to sell that oil. They would rather sell it to us - I hope. But remember, Chinese "firms" have sunk over $15 billion into the Athabascan fields. They want that oil too. And they will finance that pipeline - only then it will go west, not south.

I just wish the Congress had done what they did in 1973 when they gave to go ahead for the Alyeska Pipeline. It still pumps about 20% of our total production. And it all come here with a small amout staying in Alaska. Kicking the can down the road doesn't work.

Let's not forget the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.....for Americans, that is....... we (Obama) gave the Mexicans 2 Billion of our tax dollars to drill there for their own profit.......that's how swell we are....(eyes rolling).

So naturally, since this is a triple-play, a National Security issue, an Energy issue and an Economical isssue, the Liberals are against it.

If for some reason you can't remember that come November 2012 there will be plenty of reminders in the future......

Election politics at its worst! A decision to build the safest pipeline in history for a stable source of oil needed (regardless of improving climate efforts) and jobs NOW (plus local tax revenue) is a WIN! WIN! for the country and families. It is inexcusable to delay this pipeline when America's economy (and security interests) needs it now more than ever!!

Obama has to delay the decision on the pipeline to keep the flow of money coming into his campaign coffers. Obama has said that he will make a final decision on the pipeline after the 2012 election. There is only one reason to delay his decision and I believe it has to do with fundraising.

Obama might lose the contributions from the far left environmentalists if he votes for the pipeline. He will lose the donation of the oil industry if he votes against the pipeline. The unions that are pushing for the pipeline are grumbling, but the are being patient with Obama because they might have knowledge that Obama is simply pulling a stunt to keep the money coming in. Is Obama telling the unions to "cool their jets" and be patient because he will ultimately approve the pipeline and they will get their precious jobs? Obama is playing with job creation simply to enrich his campaign.

Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.

Keystone XL is an export pipeline. According to presentations to investors, Gulf Coast refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to Europe and Latin America. Proceeds from these exports are earned tax-free. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks. Reducing demand for oil is the best way to improve our energy security. U.S. demand for oil has been declining since 2007. New fuel-efficiency standards mean that this trend will continue once the economy gets back on track. In fact, the Energy Deptartment report on KeystoneXL found that decreasing demand through fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce mid-east oil imports with or without the pipeline.

By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans. TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.” Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest. According to an independent analysis U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation.

In 2008, TransCanada’s Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL to the State Department indicated “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” to build the pipeline. Jobs estimates above those listed in its application draw from a 2011 report commissioned by TransCanada that estimates 20,000 “person-years” of employment based on a non-public forecast model using undisclosed inputs provided by TransCanada. According to TransCanada’s own data, just 11% of the construction jobs on the Keystone I pipeline in South Dakota were filled by South Dakotans–most of them for temporary, low-paying manual labor. Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) both oppose the pipeline. Their August 2011 statement: “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil. There is no shortage of water and sewage pipelines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels that are in need of emergency repair, transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation—jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency.”

Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.

The U.S. Pipeline Safety Administration has not yet conducted an in depth analysis of the safety of diluted bitumen (raw tar sands) pipeline, despite unique safety concerns posed by its more corrosive properties. TransCanada predicted that the Keystone I pipeline would see one spill in 7 years. In fact, there have been 12 spills in 1 year. The company was ordered to dig up 10 sections of pipe after government-ordered tests indicated that defective steel may have been used. KeystoneXL will use steel from the same Indian manufacturer. Keystone XL will cross through America’s agricultural heartland, the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers, the Ogallala aquifer, sage grouse habitat, walleye fisheries and more. The agency was not adequately accounting for threats to wildlife, increased pollution in distressed communities where the crude may be refined, or increases in carbon emissions that would exacerbate climate change, and a variety of other issues.

Climate Change: Keystone XL is the fuse to North America’s biggest carbon bomb.

In a study funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a group of retired four-star generals and admirals concluded that climate change, if not addressed, will be the greatest threat to national security. The State Department Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately analyze lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the pipeline. Extraction and refinement of oil sands are more GHG-intensive compared to conventional oil. The EIS estimates that the additional annual GHG emissions from the proposed pipeline could range from an additional “12-23 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent… (roughly the equivalent of annual emissions from 2 to 4 coal-fired power plants)” over conventional crude oil from the Middle East. [8] The EPA believes that the methodology used by the State Department is inaccurate and could underestimate GHG emissions by as much as 20 percent.[9] Given that the expected lifetime of the Keystone XL pipeline is fifty years, the EPA notes that the project could yield an extra 1.15 billion tons of GHGs using the quantitative estimates in the EIS.[10]

To all you teanuts try reading and looking up true facts and not BS from fox noise and other right wing talking heads. Then you would not look like DAs that you are. Read just a little, and you would learn something, and not be spoon feed GOP talking points and lies from fox noise. The pipeline would be bad for the country and could become a real mess if it started leaking, so thanks, but no thanks. Try reading the true facts that I have posted, for once.

1. TransCanada has made many assurances that if and when their proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has a leak, it will be able to shut the pipeline down much faster than Exxon did. Their actions with their other, similar pipeline don’t match their rhetoric – when TransCanada’s brand new, state-of-the art Keystone I spilled 21,000 gallons in May, it took the company forty-four minutes to shut the pipeline down after the spill happened. This appears to be a few minutes faster than Exxon’s response, but TransCanada had the benefit of a landowner that called the spill in. We’ve seen again and again where the theoretical responses of these pipeline operators are far better than their actual response. Unfortunately, the actual spills are the ones that have to be cleaned up.

2. TransCanada is assuring Montanans that the Keystone XL pipeline would be buried deep under rivers and streams in Montana and in other places along its route. Keystone XL would cross 1,904 rivers, streams and reservoirs along its route. TransCanada plans to use horizontal directional drilling, a method of constructing a pipeline twenty or more feet below a riverbed, for thirty-nine of these rivers. At the 1,865 other river, stream and reservoir crossings, TransCanada would build Keystone XL a mere five feet below the riverbed.

3. New reports suggest that safety valves will automatically shut Keystone XL off in the event of a leak, leaving no room for human error. This hasn’t been true for TransCanada’s first Keystone pipeline in the Midwest. The information TransCanada has provided the State Department clearly says that safety valves on the upstream side of the large rivers will be “remotely operated.” By “remote” they mean over the Canadian border in Calgary, Alberta. And also, along the 1,980 miles of proposed Keystone XL pipeline, there would be only 136 safety valves - that leaves a lot of rivers and streams uncovered.

4. TransCanada suggests there is little risk of a spill on its Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Even so, the magnitude of its worst case scenario for the segment of their proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would cross the Yellowstone River is significant. The company estimates a potential spill of 24,900 barrels or a little over a million gallons for that section. A similar tar sands spill near the Kalamazoo River in Michigan is still being cleaned up a year later. And even this figure raises questions, given the fact that Keystone XL’s real-time leak detection system doesn’t register spills less than 700,000 gallons per day (or 1.5-2% of its capacity). The company seems to consider leaks even of that magnitude as too small for more rigorous monitoring and will only rely on aerial inspections that happen every two to three weeks.

5. TransCanada claims that their proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would be built of thicker steel than Exxon’s Silvertip pipeline was. That depends. Exxon's pipeline was 0.5 inches thick. Keystone XL would be between 0.456 inches and 0.748 inches thick. Not much of a difference.

6. TransCanada also says that Keystone XL will operate at lower than allowed pressures. However, these pressures will be much higher than were present in the ExxonMobil or in any conventional oil pipeline. In fact, Keystone XL would operate at nearly twice the pressure of Exxon’s pipeline – the Silvertip had a maximum operating pressure of 960 pounds-force per square inch (PSIG) while Keystone XL must withstand up to 1,600 psig.

7. TransCanada makes much of its 60 year operation history, but much of that experience has been in natural gas, and not oil pipelines. In fact, the State Department decided it was impossible to compare TransCanada’s safety record with the rest of the oil pipeline industry. TransCanada’s first wholly owned oil pipeline in the U.S. is the recently built Keystone I tar sands pipeline to the Midwest. Considering that Keystone I is the youngest pipeline to have been considered an immediate threat to the life, property and the environment by pipeline safety regulators, TransCanada is off to a rocky start.

8. TransCanada claims that the average amount of oil accidentally released on TransCanada’s existing Keystone I tar sands pipeline “is a few dozen liters per incident.” But this math doesn’t add up: depending on which spill estimates you use, the average spill volume for the dozen spill on the U.S. section of the Keystone I line is between 1,460 and 1,950 gallons. More than a few liters, and significantly more than we were told to expect when TransCanada proposed the project.

Well this is easy, the President has at least the amount of time that is needed by the State of Nebraska and TransCanada to formulate a plan. The bigger question should be is why is Congress using our tax dollars to support a Canadian oil company? Based upon the Constatation, they have no business in this matter. Are these Representatives working for the American tax payer or Non American Corporate ententes?

I've always thought the idea of plowing a fat new artery of vulnerability across our country from Canada to Texas seems more an idea our chimpanzee cousins might come up with, not humans. Who wants the toxic tar sand sludge leaking in their states (or backyards)? We already have serious problems with oil pipeline leakage? Do we want to set ourselves up for the piplene equivalent of the BP Gulf disaster? Why not get the oil product and create the American jobs by building a refinery just across the Canadian border in some northern U.S. state? That way we avoid the worries, headaches and dangers of installing a cross-country vein of poisons.

My guess is that Obama and the Dems will delay a vote as close to elections as possible. Just like everything else this administration and the dems have done thus far. Every decision has been treated as such. They wait until their party can benefit.

My guess is that Obama and the Dems will delay a vote as close to elections as possible. Just like everything else this administration and the dems have done thus far. Every decision has been treated as such. They wait until their party can benefit.

So naturally, since this is a triple-play, a National Security issue, an Energy issue and an Economical isssue, the Liberals are against it.

Tom - where in the Trans Continential agreement do they declare that the oil is ours? We are simply refinning that oil for them, we are NOT purchasing that oil. The pipeline belongs to them and the oil running through that pipeline belongs to them. How does this improve our National Security? At best it will create some short term jobs installing the pipeline itself, and perhaps the already running refineries will hire a few more people to work as a result but other than that - I'm not seeing the great good this will do for America.

The nation's more than two million miles of pipelines safely deliver trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of billions of ton/miles of liquid petroleum products each year. They are essential: the volumes of energy products they move are well beyond the capacity of other forms of transportation. It would take a constant line of tanker trucks, about 750 per day, loading up and moving out every two minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to move the volume of even a modest pipeline. The railroad-equivalent of this single pipeline would be a train of 75 2,000-barrel tank rail cars everyday. These alternatives would require many times the people, clog the air with engine pollutants, be prohibitively expensive and -- with many more vehicles on roads and rails carrying hazardous materials -- unacceptably dangerous.

So says the United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration. The pipeline would be the safest ever built because of its location and because of the scrutiny that it has had. There is no question that a dependable source of oil from our closest ally would benefit both the US and Canada. all

The only remaining question remaining from all the federal and state reviews by the EPA and state environmental organizations is whether the project is in the national interest. This is the decision that the State Department is tasked with. This is the only consideration left for Obama to consider. It is a decision that should take no more than 10 minutes to come to.

Obama is pandering to a far-left fringe, at best, or pushing off the decision because, against all logic and once again against the will of the people of the United States is contemplating rejecting the pipeline. The people of the United States are entitled to know his decision now. The radical Luddites against fossil fuels have a right to know if Obama will act in the best interests of the country and approve the pipeline. The vast majority of Americans in favor of the pipeline deserve to know if Obama will continue his war against energy and reject the pipeline.

Not making a decision and hoping to play both sides is the current decision by Obama. This is unacceptable and forcing him to make a decision at every opportunity is the correct thing to do. If he had simply done his job and approved the pipeline he would have offended a very small portion of voters in the country, continuing the charade offends all Americans.